New Jersey Animals Get More Protection, Still Property

Last month New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed laws creating two new felonies for animal abuse. The first, “Patrick’s Law,” increases neglect of a dog from a disorderly persons offense, a misdemeanor, to a fourth degree felony, or in some cases, a third degree felony.

The fines associated with these crimes were also increased. Additionally, overworking an animal is now a misdemeanor offense. The law was inspired by Patrick, a malnourished pit bull who was thrown down a garbage chute in a trash bag by his owner. Patrick survived and was rescued, but owner Kisha Curtis is not expected to face harsh penalties for her actions. Under the new law, even failing to provide a dog like Patrick with adequate food and water could land a similar offender in custody. The bill was passed by the NJ Assembly last spring.

Christie also signed “Dano’s Law,” aka “Dano’s and Vader’s Law.” Under this addition, it is now a fourth degree felony to threaten the life of a law enforcement animal. This measure primarily includes K-9 units, but also horses for mounted police. NJ Sen. Christopher Bateman commented, “Cowardly criminals who threaten the life of a law enforcement animal will now receive the punishment they deserve.”

Turning to Patrick’s Law first, the revised language of the animal cruelty statute still isn’t perfect, but it’s much more powerful. For instance, the statute still only penalizes “unnecessary cruelty,” which of course assumes that there is some level of acceptable cruelty, most likely in working animal situations. It also gives the courts some discretion in its application by penalizing only those who “unnecessarily fail” to provide food and water. The changes to the statute also provide for monetary restitution if the animal is killed, which seems thoughtful, but only reinforces the notion of animals as a sort of specialized property. Those complaints aside, the updated law is a commendable advancement. As the Blawg previously commented, Schultz’s Law created a potential danger by pushing animal protection laws through for the wrong reasons. Patrick’s Law is perhaps superior in that it does not draw distinctions between animals (save again for the exceptions that allow for different treatment of farmed and lab animals) based on arbitrary roles. It enforces against cruelty equally, drawing on the same langauge as the human assault law.

Dano’s Law is less inspiring, and is more akin to Schultz. On one hand, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing to give greater status to police animals; after all, police officers are given greater status than other humans as far as criminal law is concerned. As long as there are tougher penalties for regular abuse in place, such as what has now been accomplished with Patrick’s Law, is it so outrageous to give greater protection to some animals? On the other hand, does this law really help animals? It’s one thing to threaten an officer, who is aware of what she is doing, knows her life is on the line, and should perhaps receive greater protection for risking her safety. Now, the dogs are risking their safety as well, and if you hurt a police dog, there are consequences. That’s what the Schultz measure accomplished. Criminalizing a threat to a dog is a bit different. The dog is likely not internalizing the threat, is not daily thinking about the safety of his family or officer, and won’t feel threatened in the same way. You have to have a third party determine the nature of the threat, and really it’s the human who is feeling at risk. I’m interested to know how many times police dogs have been threatened without the officer being threatened as well.

There is a risk that this law is only going to compound the charges a defendant may receive anyway, and for what? Are we discouraging a rampant problem in the animal abuse world? Is this the type of abuse that needs the attention of our legislature? Even if you agree with this law, it isn’t really an advancement of animal rights, but an advancement for the people who work with law enforcement animals. The language of the law treats the animals as extensions of their handlers. There is no agency for these animals; they are more protected tools than protected beings, and I don’t think that’s the direction we want to go. What do you think? Is it better to have something on the books that doesn’t really get to the heart of animal rights than to have nothing at all?